SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 3128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Shaduli P.M. S/o Late P.M. Moosa – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1750 of 2025
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Subash Chandran, Kavitha K.T., Ahalya Prakash K.V., Hamdan Mansoor K.
For the Respondent: E.C. Bineesh

Emergency leave under prison rules applies to both a convict's sister's and brother's children, aligning with constitutional principles of equality.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 - Rule 400 - Petition for emergency leave for convict to attend nephew's marriage - Rejection based on incorrect interpretation of 'direct nephew' - Court held term encompasses both sister's and brother's children, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution if interpreted otherwise. (Paras 3, 5, 6)

(B) Interpretation of Rules - Rules must be interpreted without discrimination among family relations to uphold constitutional rights. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought emergency leave for his uncle, a convict, to attend the petitioner's marriage. The prison authority rejected the request, misinterpreting the definition of direct nephew.

Findings of Court:
Emergency leave granted on the basis that both sister’s and brother’s children qualify under the term.

Issues: The key issue was the correct interpretation of 'direct nephew' under Rule 400(1)(ii) and addressing discrimination claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for inclusive interpretations of familial relationships in the context of prison leave rules to avoid violation of constitutional rights.

Result: The Jail Superintendent directed to grant leave.

Table of Content
1. entitlement to emergency leave for close relatives' marriage. (Para 1)
2. counsel representation and legal submissions. (Para 2)
3. emergency leave eligibility criteria for convicts. (Para 3)
4. interpretation of 'direct nephew' under prison rules. (Para 4 , 5)
5. judicial direction for granting emergency leave. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

1. The petitioner is the nephew of the convict, who is undergoing life imprisonment at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur. The petitioner's marriage is scheduled for 26.12.2025, as evident from Ext. P4 invitation card. The petitioner submitted an application to the Superintendent of Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur, seeking ten days' emergency leave for the convict to attend the marriage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of the said application. Hence, he has approached this Court to give a direction to the respondents to grant emergency leave to the convict for the period from 20.12.2025 to 29.12.2025.

2. I have heard Sri.Subash Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. Rule 400 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (for short 'the Rules') deals with the grant of emergency leave. As per Rule 400(1) (ii), a convict is eligible for emergency leave to attend the marriage of close relatives mentioned therein. It reads thus:

400. Emergency leave:

(1) Any well behaved convicted prisoner other than a person convicted in respect of any offence relating to National Security shall be eligible for emergency leave under any of the very exceptional circumstances specified below, namely.

(i) xxx

(ii) Marriage of son, daughter, brother and sister, grandson, granddaughter, brother-in law, sister-in law, direct nephew, direct niece.”

4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the application for emergency leave filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Rules. It is submitted that the Jail Superintendent interpreted the term(direct nephew) as the sister's son of the convict and not the brother's son. I cannot accept the said interpretation. The large number of writ petitions filed before this Court challenging rejection of applications for emergency leave invoking Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Rules would also show that a wrong interpretation is being given to the terms by almost all the Jail Superintendents in the State.

5. The term cannot be interpreted to mean only the sister's son or daughter. There cannot be any discrimination between the sister's children and the brother's children. Exclusion of the convict’s brother’s son or daughter from the purview of Rule 400 (1)(ii) would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I hold that emergency leave can be granted to the convict, invoking Rule 400(1)(ii) of the Rules, to attend the marriage of not only the convict's sister's son or daughter, but also the convict's brother's son or daughter as well, subject to the conditions in sub-rule (1) of Rule 400.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur is directed to grant emergency leave to the convict for a week with effect from 23.12.2025. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Jail Superintendents of all prisons in the State.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top